In The Anarchical Society, Hedley Bull concludes that the international system is best understood as his theorized international society. Yet while he substantiates his argument with a plethora of historical examples and the fallacies of earlier presumptions, his analysis fails to address the roles of the largely undeveloped, destitute nations and relies nearly entirely on what he perceives as the goals of interstate relationships. Through a careful investigation of the core motives that drive state action, international anarchy – not Bull's international society – emerges as the most viable portrait of the international system.
             According to the argument Hedley Bull develops in the earlier part of The Anarchical Society, security against violence, observance of agreements, and stability of property are the three elementary, primary, and universal goals of society. Order and international order are then understood as a recurrent pattern of human conduct that preserves these goals of social life (Bull, 4-7). For Bull, states are the collective agents charged with the protection and furtherance of the interests of their population and its values, and the key ingredient for world peace (Bull, 8, 13, 17). He perceives an international society as the expression of international order, as it constitutes a society of states and is a possible result for any group of states that shares coherent goals. An international society then forms a system in the sense that the behaviour of each of the states is a necessary factor in the perception and analysis of the others, and the states are expected to perform certain duties beyond their narrow scope of self-interest.
             While Bull certainly appears to present a convincing and logical thesis, his argument draws glaring concerns. First, his three goals of society are merely goals that are cherished by those who are satisfied with the existing scheme of the world...